Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council Permit Scheme

15.1 Disputes

The TMA provides wide ranging powers to devise a reasonable and suitable dispute resolution procedure and to identify the stages at which it can be invoked.  As yet there are no prescribed procedures set out in statute for Permit Schemes. Therefore it is felt prudent to build on and use the arrangements already established in HAUC (England) and at local and national level.

The Permit Authority and the promoters are expected to use their best endeavours to resolve disputes without the need for formal appeals using existing escalation processes through individual management structures.  However, it is recognised that this may not always be possible. If agreements cannot be reached on any matter arising under the terms of the Permit Scheme the dispute will be referred for review on the following basis:

1)    Straightforward issues

Where the two parties consider that the issues involved in the dispute are relatively straightforward and can be referred to impartial members of the regional HAUC (that is those not representing the parties directly involved) for review.  That should take place within 5 working days of the referral.  It is recommended that the result is accepted as binding

2)    Complex issues

If the parties think the issues are particularly complex, they should ask HAUC (England) to set up a review panel of four members comprising of two statutory undertakers and two Permit Authority representatives, one of which will be appointed chair by the HAUC (England) joint chairs.

Each party will make all the relevant financial, technical and other information available to the review panel.  The review should take place within 10 days of the date on which the issue if referred to HAUC (England) and it is recommended that both parties accept the advice given by the review panel.

15.2 Adjudication

If an agreement cannot be reached and/or if one of the parties does not accept the ruling given as binding, then the dispute will be referred to independent adjudication on the proviso that the parties agree that the decision of the adjudicator is deemed to be final.

The costs of the adjudication will be borne equally unless the adjudicator considers that one party has presented a frivolous case, in which case costs may be awarded against them.  Where this route is followed, the parties should apply to the joint chairs of HAUC (England) who will select and appoint the independent adjudicator from a suitable recognised professional body.

If the parties do not agree that the decision of the adjudicator is deemed to be final the promoter will have the option of challenging the Permit Authority's decision through the administrative court by way of judicial review.

15.3 Arbitration

Disputes relating to matters covered by the following sections of NRSWA may be settled by arbitration, as provided for in Section 99 of NRSWA:

• Section 58 (7A) - restriction on works following substantial road works;
• Section 58A - restriction on works following substantial street works
• Section 61 (6) - consent to placing apparatus in protected streets
• Section 62 (5) - directions relating to protected streets
• Section 74 (2) - charges for occupation of the highway where works are unreasonably prolonged
• Section 74A (12) - charges determined by reference to duration of works
• Section 84 (3) - apparatus affected by major works
• Section 96 (3) - recovery of costs or expenses.